Officially, America is no longer America. France and UK are doing better.

That Was Awful. Do It Again!
The New York Times's bizarre position on Iran.

By JAMES TARANTO

We suppose we were a bit hasty in declaring, in yesterday's headline, "We're All Neocons Now." That "all," of course, left out President Obama, who has been under fire from left and right for his listless response to the Iranian regime's political crisis. But we hadn't realized that Obama is expressly not under fire from one place on the left, the New York Times editorial board. In an editorial yesterday, the paper staked out a position of such utter confusion that it can only be termed bizarre. Here are the final three paragraphs:

More violence against the Iranian people will only highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation.

If the authorities want to resolve this impasse peacefully--that must be the goal--they should call a new election, monitored by independent Iranian observers. Before last week's results were prematurely and improbably declared, a runoff was expected between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi. As a first step, authorities should set up a commission representing all major candidates to examine the election data and jointly determine a face-saving and credible way forward.

Some in Washington, meanwhile, have been complaining that President Obama hasn't been tough enough in his criticism of Iran's government. He may have to speak out more forcefully in the days to come. But given its history with Iran, the United States must take special care not to be seen as interfering. That would only give Iran's hard-liners a further excuse to blame the United States for their own shameful failures.​

Let's take this from the bottom, starting with the paper's comments on Obama. This paragraph is remarkable for its own flocculence. The Times implies, without quite saying it, both that it approves of Obama's evasions ("the United States must take special care") and that it would approve if he took a different approach ("he may have to speak out more forcefully"). It's hard to know whether to describe this as a posture of total deference to the president or of complete indifference to the underlying subject.

The paper even refrains from criticizing the one Obama statement that has drawn expressions of disapproval from almost everyone else: his claim, on Tuesday, that there's not much difference between incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi. If this is true, the Times's call for a new election doesn't make much sense.

Not that it makes much sense either way. There is so much wrong with this idea that it's hard to know where to begin, so let's pick one telling detail: the paper's insistence that the new election be "monitored by independent Iranian observers." Why not call for monitoring by international observers, common practice when corrupt Third World regimes hold elections? In this context, "independent Iranian observers" is a contradiction in terms anyway, given that all Iranians live either under or inside the regime's heel.

As we've noted earlier this week, even an "honest" Iranian election would be a sham, given that only candidates approved by the regime-controlled Guardian Council are permitted to run. (This year the council rejected more than 100 prospective candidates for every one it approved.) And what if the regime decided to make the revote only a travesty of a sham rather than a mockery of a travesty of a sham--that is, what if it steals the election for Ahmadinejad again, but in a less obvious way?

The Times seems to think such a result would be desirable. The editorial's penultimate paragraph calls for "a face-saving and credible way forward," not a fair and just one. This is consistent with the antepenultimate paragraph, which we'll repeat for emphasis:

More violence against the Iranian people will only highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation.

This statement is flatly false. More violence would do many things beside "highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation." Most obvious, it would inflict pain, injury and death on innocent people who are heroically standing against a criminal regime. It could succeed in achieving the regime's goal, which is to suppress dissent by terrorizing the population. In short, violence is part and parcel of the regime's illegitimacy. The Times, however, expresses concern only that it highlights that illegitimacy.

Making this even more strange, yesterday's Times editorial is a substantial weakening of the paper's own position in a Monday editorial that highlighted the regime's illegitimacy:

The elections are another potent reminder that there can be no illusions about Iran's government and its malign intent. That is a hard political fact.

From "there can be no illusions" to "determine a face-saving and credible way forward" in 72 hours. It takes courage for Iranians to put themselves on the line in opposition to a repressive regime. It takes a special kind of cowardice to waver in one's opposition from the comfort of a free country half a world away....

Officially, America is no longer America. France and UK are doing better.

That Was Awful. Do It Again!
The New York Times's bizarre position on Iran.

By JAMES TARANTO

We suppose we were a bit hasty in declaring, in yesterday's headline, "We're All Neocons Now." That "all," of course, left out President Obama, who has been under fire from left and right for his listless response to the Iranian regime's political crisis. But we hadn't realized that Obama is expressly not under fire from one place on the left, the New York Times editorial board. In an editorial yesterday, the paper staked out a position of such utter confusion that it can only be termed bizarre. Here are the final three paragraphs:

More violence against the Iranian people will only highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation.

If the authorities want to resolve this impasse peacefully--that must be the goal--they should call a new election, monitored by independent Iranian observers. Before last week's results were prematurely and improbably declared, a runoff was expected between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi. As a first step, authorities should set up a commission representing all major candidates to examine the election data and jointly determine a face-saving and credible way forward.

Some in Washington, meanwhile, have been complaining that President Obama hasn't been tough enough in his criticism of Iran's government. He may have to speak out more forcefully in the days to come. But given its history with Iran, the United States must take special care not to be seen as interfering. That would only give Iran's hard-liners a further excuse to blame the United States for their own shameful failures.​

Let's take this from the bottom, starting with the paper's comments on Obama. This paragraph is remarkable for its own flocculence. The Times implies, without quite saying it, both that it approves of Obama's evasions ("the United States must take special care") and that it would approve if he took a different approach ("he may have to speak out more forcefully"). It's hard to know whether to describe this as a posture of total deference to the president or of complete indifference to the underlying subject.

The paper even refrains from criticizing the one Obama statement that has drawn expressions of disapproval from almost everyone else: his claim, on Tuesday, that there's not much difference between incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi. If this is true, the Times's call for a new election doesn't make much sense.

Not that it makes much sense either way. There is so much wrong with this idea that it's hard to know where to begin, so let's pick one telling detail: the paper's insistence that the new election be "monitored by independent Iranian observers." Why not call for monitoring by international observers, common practice when corrupt Third World regimes hold elections? In this context, "independent Iranian observers" is a contradiction in terms anyway, given that all Iranians live either under or inside the regime's heel.

As we've noted earlier this week, even an "honest" Iranian election would be a sham, given that only candidates approved by the regime-controlled Guardian Council are permitted to run. (This year the council rejected more than 100 prospective candidates for every one it approved.) And what if the regime decided to make the revote only a travesty of a sham rather than a mockery of a travesty of a sham--that is, what if it steals the election for Ahmadinejad again, but in a less obvious way?

The Times seems to think such a result would be desirable. The editorial's penultimate paragraph calls for "a face-saving and credible way forward," not a fair and just one. This is consistent with the antepenultimate paragraph, which we'll repeat for emphasis:

More violence against the Iranian people will only highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation.

This statement is flatly false. More violence would do many things beside "highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation." Most obvious, it would inflict pain, injury and death on innocent people who are heroically standing against a criminal regime. It could succeed in achieving the regime's goal, which is to suppress dissent by terrorizing the population. In short, violence is part and parcel of the regime's illegitimacy. The Times, however, expresses concern only that it highlights that illegitimacy.

Making this even more strange, yesterday's Times editorial is a substantial weakening of the paper's own position in a Monday editorial that highlighted the regime's illegitimacy:

The elections are another potent reminder that there can be no illusions about Iran's government and its malign intent. That is a hard political fact.

From "there can be no illusions" to "determine a face-saving and credible way forward" in 72 hours. It takes courage for Iranians to put themselves on the line in opposition to a repressive regime. It takes a special kind of cowardice to waver in one's opposition from the comfort of a free country half a world away....

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yep! We now have the honour of being the ones to piss off Iran the most. Ayatollah Khamanei called the UK the most treacherous of Irans enemies.

Quite funny really, coming from a bunch of medievil tub thumpers who opress their own people.

Officially, America is no longer America. France and UK are doing better.

That Was Awful. Do It Again!
The New York Times's bizarre position on Iran.

By JAMES TARANTO

We suppose we were a bit hasty in declaring, in yesterday's headline, "We're All Neocons Now." That "all," of course, left out President Obama, who has been under fire from left and right for his listless response to the Iranian regime's political crisis. But we hadn't realized that Obama is expressly not under fire from one place on the left, the New York Times editorial board. In an editorial yesterday, the paper staked out a position of such utter confusion that it can only be termed bizarre. Here are the final three paragraphs:

More violence against the Iranian people will only highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation.

If the authorities want to resolve this impasse peacefully--that must be the goal--they should call a new election, monitored by independent Iranian observers. Before last week's results were prematurely and improbably declared, a runoff was expected between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi. As a first step, authorities should set up a commission representing all major candidates to examine the election data and jointly determine a face-saving and credible way forward.

Some in Washington, meanwhile, have been complaining that President Obama hasn't been tough enough in his criticism of Iran's government. He may have to speak out more forcefully in the days to come. But given its history with Iran, the United States must take special care not to be seen as interfering. That would only give Iran's hard-liners a further excuse to blame the United States for their own shameful failures.​

Let's take this from the bottom, starting with the paper's comments on Obama. This paragraph is remarkable for its own flocculence. The Times implies, without quite saying it, both that it approves of Obama's evasions ("the United States must take special care") and that it would approve if he took a different approach ("he may have to speak out more forcefully"). It's hard to know whether to describe this as a posture of total deference to the president or of complete indifference to the underlying subject.

The paper even refrains from criticizing the one Obama statement that has drawn expressions of disapproval from almost everyone else: his claim, on Tuesday, that there's not much difference between incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi. If this is true, the Times's call for a new election doesn't make much sense.

Not that it makes much sense either way. There is so much wrong with this idea that it's hard to know where to begin, so let's pick one telling detail: the paper's insistence that the new election be "monitored by independent Iranian observers." Why not call for monitoring by international observers, common practice when corrupt Third World regimes hold elections? In this context, "independent Iranian observers" is a contradiction in terms anyway, given that all Iranians live either under or inside the regime's heel.

As we've noted earlier this week, even an "honest" Iranian election would be a sham, given that only candidates approved by the regime-controlled Guardian Council are permitted to run. (This year the council rejected more than 100 prospective candidates for every one it approved.) And what if the regime decided to make the revote only a travesty of a sham rather than a mockery of a travesty of a sham--that is, what if it steals the election for Ahmadinejad again, but in a less obvious way?

The Times seems to think such a result would be desirable. The editorial's penultimate paragraph calls for "a face-saving and credible way forward," not a fair and just one. This is consistent with the antepenultimate paragraph, which we'll repeat for emphasis:

More violence against the Iranian people will only highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation.

This statement is flatly false. More violence would do many things beside "highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation." Most obvious, it would inflict pain, injury and death on innocent people who are heroically standing against a criminal regime. It could succeed in achieving the regime's goal, which is to suppress dissent by terrorizing the population. In short, violence is part and parcel of the regime's illegitimacy. The Times, however, expresses concern only that it highlights that illegitimacy.

Making this even more strange, yesterday's Times editorial is a substantial weakening of the paper's own position in a Monday editorial that highlighted the regime's illegitimacy:

The elections are another potent reminder that there can be no illusions about Iran's government and its malign intent. That is a hard political fact.

From "there can be no illusions" to "determine a face-saving and credible way forward" in 72 hours. It takes courage for Iranians to put themselves on the line in opposition to a repressive regime. It takes a special kind of cowardice to waver in one's opposition from the comfort of a free country half a world away....

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You people seem so eager to provoke Iran into realtime threats against the United States. You just can't stand it that we're not on the verge of another war and bloodying up citizens of some other country, can you.

You people seem so eager to provoke Iran into realtime threats against the United States. You just can't stand it that we're not on the verge of another war and bloodying up citizens of some other country, can you.

You people seem so eager to provoke Iran into realtime threats against the United States. You just can't stand it that we're not on the verge of another war and bloodying up citizens of some other country, can you.

You people seem so eager to provoke Iran into realtime threats against the United States. You just can't stand it that we're not on the verge of another war and bloodying up citizens of some other country, can you.

Why don't we take over the country. Install a Shah or something and make them our friends.

Oh, sorry we did that already and then it was democracy we overthrew.

Obama should come out and really vocally back them up. Then Grand Leader can say that they are our stooges and has the right to kill them.

What ever happened to a country, right or wrong, having the right to run its own affairs. The only way they will change, and they will because the right wing religious nuts will lose their power over time, is for the Iranians to rise up and change their government.

I don't remember Iran and any one else attacking US when Bush stole the election in 2000.

No one here supports Grand Leader, but the chickenshit Kantors and other repulicraps are just using this as another political ploy.

Why don't we take over the country. Install a Shah or something and make them our friends.

Oh, sorry we did that already and then it was democracy we overthrew.

Obama should come out and really vocally back them up. Then Grand Leader can say that they are our stooges and has the right to kill them.

What ever happened to a country, right or wrong, having the right to run its own affairs. The only way they will change, and they will because the right wing religious nuts will lose their power over time, is for the Iranians to rise up and change their government.

I don't remember Iran and any one else attacking US when Bush stole the election in 2000.

No one here supports Grand Leader, but the chickenshit Kantors and other repulicraps are just using this as another political ploy.

Click to expand...

I absolutely LOVE the claim Bush stole the 2000 election. Even though EVER recount, even by people that desperately wanted to PROVE Bush stole the election found that Bush won.

Another example of a Liberal dumb ass thinking if they repeat the lie often enough people will believe it.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!